Pages

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Sometimes, like it did last week, bad news comes down in buckets

Last week was full of bad news. President Barack Obama
created a firestorm with controversial comments about the role of the Supreme
Court, interpreted by some as an attempt to intimidate the Court into allowing
the health care reform law to stand. At the end of the week March job numbers
and unemployment numbers were released showing only bad news. Job creation was
an anemic 120,000, and so many people became discouraged over the poor job
climate and dropped out of the job market that it caused the unemployment rate to
drop by one-tenth of a percent to 8.2 percent. Normally, it is a good sign when
unemployment drops, but not this time.

And, a huge scandal erupted following the news that an office
of the General Services Administration (GSA), the Public Buildings Service, which
is known as the "landlord" for the federal government, is now being
investigated for a 2010 Las Vegas conference that cost taxpayers a cool
$820,000 to $840,000.

The details of the outing reveal an orgy of spending for the
benefit of the public servants who attended. The conference provided such lavish
niceties as clown and mind-reader entertainment, and more than $146,000 worth
of food and drinks, including $44-a-person breakfasts; $19-a-person
"artisanal cheese" displays; $16-per-person pasta stations; and
shrimp costing $4 each. Attendees also received $3,700 worth of shirts, $6,300
worth of commemorative coins and $1,800 worth of special vests. As you might
imagine, such an extravagant affair took a lot of planning, more than $130,000
worth.

A couple of videos from the event have surfaced, showing a Buildings
Service employee performing in a music video in which the employee raps:
"Donate my vacation, love to the nation, I'll never be under OIG
investigation." Other highlights show public employees arrogantly flaunting
the wasting of the public’s money.

No doubt President Barack Obama was terribly embarrassed by
this revelation, having only a year before this outrageous misuse of public
funds made strong statements against corporations who received federal bailouts
living it up at taxpayer expense. “You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go
down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime," he scolded. So, it had to
hurt to find his own Executive Branch employees acting with the same disregard
for taxpayer funds as the corporations that got bailouts.

However, the administration hastened to correctly point out
that the start of this problem predates Mr. Obama’s presidency. In 2004 the
Buildings Service spent $93,000 on the conference, about 11 percent of the 2010
total. From that point on, the bill got bigger and bigger as the conference
moved around the country, totaling $323,855 in 2006, $655,025 in 2008, and then
the 2010 near-million-dollar Vegas lollapalooza.

Obviously, the Bush and Obama administrations weren’t paying
much attention to how the public’s money was being handled. And the Inspector
General Office’s report last week indicates the Obama administration knew about
the trip at least in May of 2010, five months before the conference took place,
and did nothing about it.

The gross misuse of public funds by the Buildings Service at
its biennial conference isn’t the end of the story for this agency, however. The
commissioner’s budget has been rising since 2009, the year Commissioner Robert
Peck was appointed. In fiscal 2009, his budget was $3.25 million, only slightly
higher than two years earlier. But in 2010 the budget jumped to $6.94
million, and jumped again in 2011 to $9.16 million.

The man at the center of the scandal is Jeffrey E. Neely, the
person who made sure that the conference was “over the top,” compared to
previous bashes. He initially approved a $300,000 budget for the 2010
conference, but later nearly tripled the budget to about $823,000. Mr. Neely
attended five of the eight agency “dry run” meetings held in advance of the
conference to be sure the proposed venue would be able to deliver a show to end
all shows for government workers, according to information from the GSA Office
of Inspector General.

Commissioner Peck was fired in the wake of the scandal, GSA Administrator
Martha Johnson resigned, and several employees have been placed on leave
pending investigation, following the IG report. Apparently, none of those
involved has tried to pay the taxpayers back for their outrageous spending
abuses.

The evidence that our federal government is overgrown, arrogant
and abusive of the citizenry continues to mount up. And yet even the suggestion
that spending needs to be cut and government needs to be downsized and brought
under control elicits howls of protest from liberals, statists and those on the
receiving end of taxpayer money being freely doled out for all manner of
inappropriate things.

Over-indulgences like this tawdry Las Vegas episode are
clearly out of bounds, but apparently they are not all that unusual, and that
sort of behavior didn’t originate under Barack Obama, or George Bush. But Barack
Obama is the president now, and it will be instructive to see if he has the
courage and the regard for the people of the United States to take quick steps
to do something meaningful about government malfeasance like this.

14 comments:

I agree. Just another example about how things can get out of control. And funny how the agency that hosted the bash is the one who should be pulling the plug on such expenditures.

I know you'll love my solution... more oversight, transparency, policies or regulations across the board. I think every organization should be held accountable as such...

Not much different than the huge corporate bonuses and bashes some companies like to throw... but usually its the workers who would prefer the budget for these events and bonuses to be spread among the ground level folks, just like tax dollars shouldnt be used for such lavish festivities...

There is a culture within the Executive Branch (perhaps it pervades all three branches), one that has existed and been devolving for a long time, which does not respect the public which it serves and which pays the wages of federal employees. There should be no plug to be pulled, but in this poisoned cultural climate, it now falls to the head of the Executive Branch to correct the problem.

When federal employees properly appreciate their station, their function and their obligation to the people, few policies and regulations are needed, but I fully support greater transparency, and more competent managers.

It is very different from corporate bonuses and bashes, because, first, that is private money, not public money; and second, because shareholders have a direct method for taking action against improper behavior by corporate management, whereas taxpayers have a long and twisted path to follow to get something done.

You have to look at business in the correct light. A business has owners that have invested something. It may be a small business where the owner has put his house up against the business, or it may be a big company with hundreds or thousands of investors. Either way, the owners are in charge; it is their company, and they have to get enough out of the business to make their investment worthwhile. Otherwise they might as well put their money in a CD or in gold, or something.

Most businesses hire workers to produce their service or product and support the production, and in return for their work those employees are paid a wage and get benefits that they and the employer have mutually agreed to. That comprises the entire monetary obligation of the owner/employer to the employee. Anything else the employer does is out of the goodness of his/her heart.

Good CEOs earn a good living because they are in demand, and someone will pay them whatever they need to run their company. It’s very competitive. If company A offers a high-value CEO a million a year, and company B offers two million, guess what. Paying millions to the CEO of a billion dollar company isn't really a big deal. So in the large corporations the upper management gets big salaries and often big bonuses to keep them happy.

Many companies also give bonuses to employees, and most offer attractive benefits that keep workers satisfied.

As for social class, Obama is really stoking that fire, playing on the emotions of his base. I consider myself a middle-class guy. I’m not rich, don’t have a big house and a dozen BMWs. I’ve had a job since I was 15 and old enough to get a WV Work Permit, and though I’ve passed retirement age, I’m still working.

Many, perhaps most, of the so-called “upper class” are just people who have worked hard and done well. They also make it possible for other people to have a job, either by owning a business that hires people, or by buying stuff that someone has to make and sell. Most everyone has the opportunity to do what they’ve done through intelligence and hard work, however, most don’t do it, for various reasons. Maybe they just aren’t capable of successfully starting or running a business, or rising through the ranks to a management position, or maybe they don’t want that hassle and responsibility.

“It takes money to make money” is one of those cute little phrases that many people like to throw around to make it seem like the deck is stacked against the “little people.”

Ever heard of Henry Ford, whose father was an Irish immigrant, who grew up on a farm and then took all that money he made working on the family farm and started the Ford motor company and developed the assembly line?

Ever heard of Oprah Winfrey, born to a poor, single mother in Mississippi, who went on to develop a media empire?

How about J.K. Rowling, who in a period of five years went from being a woman living on social security in England to being a millionaire author?

Or Steve Jobs, given up for adoption by his unmarried university student parents, and adopted by a machinist father and an accountant mother, who then went on to become a co-founder of Apple?

The U.S. is full of people who cite this as an excuse for why they aren’t rich and famous.

I guess... those extreme examples are more exceptions than the standard though...

and of those born with "silver spoons" ... do they have to work as hard as those born on the bottom, or do their social connections and such happen to impact their life opportunities more than others? What about daddy's bank account paying for Ivy League colleges and private schools...youre right...no way any family wealth, status or influence has helped these folks succeed...

Rags to riches stories are very difficult to come by nowadays... just look at your examples... Henry Ford, Oprah, billion author Rowling and Steve Jobs... all modern day horatio alger stories...

keep telling all the little boys and girls that they can achieve these heights and they'll likely believe it along with stories about supernatural deities, talking snakes and zombies rising from the dead after three days...

Well, yes, “extreme” examples, as you term them, are always the exception. The winners of PGA golf titles are the exceptions; the home run kings are exceptions; the rock stars are the exceptions. People who excel are, by definition, exceptions. The rest of us are doomed to be – horrors – mediocre or, at least, not exceptional.

My observations reveal that those with silver spoons are frequently not exceptional. And perhaps the reason is that they don’t have to work as hard as others. Exceptional people very often succeed in spite of their social station, not because of it. It is their drive, their determination to do better than their parents, that pushes them to excel.

Rags to riches stories are always hard to come by, because they are the exceptions, which by definition means they are few and far between. If everyone epitomized the rags to riches scenario, it wouldn’t be special; it would be routine, therefore unremarkable.

And if we don’t tell them they can achieve great things, will that be a better message? “You are doomed to a mundane, unexciting, un-achieving life that will be dull and boring.” Do you think that is a better message? What if Einstein, Ford, Oprah, Jobs, etc. had been taught that? Would they have risen above the rest?

so youre saying give them all "pie in the sky" dreams and let them discover the harsh reality of the world on their own...

and as for the silver spoon folks... just look at little Bush... a lifelong C student, with drug charges and a number of failed businesses and investments under his belt, yet, through the use of his name and the status of his family, he was able to become president... this happens quite often as mediocre individuals use their family connections and resources to succeed in life. Not that it is entirely wrong, but it does create an uneven playing field from the very beginning. Leaving those of us born to more humble beginnings to 'fend for ourselves'...

Sounds like we would both enjoy America to be a truer "meritocracy"... where social status is based on your own hardwork, effort and capabilities... but far too often, the financial odds are stacked against even the best and brightest

Maybe you should go back and reread that last post and see what I actually said. You should pay particular attention to the phrase “they can achieve great things,” emphasis on the word “can,” which does not mean “will.”

The world is not black and white, so people are not going to either succeed fabulously or fail miserably. Some will succeed fabulously, some will fail miserably, most will be somewhere in the gray area in between. Still, if kids don’t think they CAN do great things, they probably won’t try.

They should be prepared to be disappointed, to fail sometimes, and then to get back up and try again. Most don’t succeed wildly the first time; it takes a few failures. But perseverance is the key. They need to learn that life is not always fair, and that no one – not even Barack Obama – can fix that.

What we are teaching kids today is the pervasive and poisonous liberal mantra: we are all the same, we are all equal. That’s pure, unadulterated BS. We’re not all equal, but we have roughly an equal opportunity to make ourselves successful. The liberals teach that if you don’t work hard and succeed on your own, the government will support you. Now there’s a great message. That may be partly why one in six Americans – 50 million of us – receives government assistance.

Yes, some people have a financial advantage. But that doesn’t guarantee success. It’s no different than in sports, where some are better baseball players, or football players, or golfers. Or where some are better looking than others. Or where some are smarter or stronger or faster than others. Did Oprah Winfrey have a financial advantage? No. Or Steve Jobs? No. Or Henry Ford? No.

People use that economic inequality crap as a crutch, to excuse their own failures. Occasionally, they are right. Mostly, it is just an excuse.

For all the shortcomings of George Bush that you mentioned, you might not realize that he is the only president to have earned a Harvard MBA.

Should I be surprised that of all those “silver spoon folks” you chose Bush, but ignored John Kerry and Ted Kennedy?

there are just as many silver spoon Dems as there are GOP... as the gov't is really more of an Aristocracy right now... so no wonder they favor the rich with their tax policies and loopholes... they are just protecting their own interests...

Social Class is the single best predictor for "life chances and opportunity"... and if the current setup continues, the income and wealth gap is only going to grow worse and worse...